Educational approval requires mandatory State registration, but incidental surplus and trustee-owned land do not prove private benefit or profit motiv...
Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
Page of 4828
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
441 to 460 of 96556 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NCLAT held that repeated non-deposit of amounts deducted from employees' salaries, which were held in trust for remittance to the employees' co-operative society, attracted fraudulent trading liability under Section 66 of the Code. The appellants admitted the deductions and failed to produce reliable material showing any legitimate use of the funds as working capital. The Tribunal further held that proof of personal gain is not essential for fraud; an act or omission intended to deceive or to injure the interests of the corporate debtor or its creditors is sufficient. The finding of liability and the direction for contribution were affirmed.
NCLAT held that repeated non-deposit of amounts deducted from employees' salaries, which were held in trust for remittance to the employees' co-operative society, attracted fraudulent trading liability under Section 66 of the Code. The appellants admitted the deductions and failed to produce reliable material showing any legitimate use of the funds as working capital. The Tribunal further held that proof of personal gain is not essential for fraud; an act or omission intended to deceive or to injure the interests of the corporate debtor or its creditors is sufficient. The finding of liability and the direction for contribution were affirmed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
